Re: Archaeological Digging is Booming Business

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

On Apr 19, 3:29 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:51 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:38:47 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:
tkavanag wrote:
"SolomonW" <Solom...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1v0lv9kqby514.10n8kbisz78dq$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:31:04 -0500, Tom McDonald wrote:

UW-L is the home of the Mississippi Valley Archaeological Center,
which has done a great job, not only of finding and digging sites
in south-western Wisconsin, but also of making connections with
normal folks, including farmers and other landowners in the
region. By so doing, they have made archaeology accessible, and
made a bunch of converts to preservation and exploration.

Once the items are catalogued and photos taken it would make a lot of
sense
to allow many of them to be sold on the open market. It would both pay
some
bills and combat the illegal trade in archaeological items.

Not if someone else might want to look at the artifacts from a direction
that you hadn't thought of.

Plus most of the stuff isn't the kind of treasure that would
either fill any coffers or satiate the ravening lusts of the
"collector" market.

What selling them would do, as you point out, is make them
unavailable to those who could continue to use them.

It could be a condition of sale. In Australia, a study showed that private
collectors looked after artifacts better than the museums.

What metric did the study use to determine that private collectors
'looked after artifacts better'?

Did that mean that private collectors could and did always provide the
archaeological community detailed lists, with usable images, of their
collections, and always made available specific artifacts when
requested by an archaeologist studying a particular problem in a more
timely fashion than could a museum; and always kept relevant
archaeologists informed when each artifact changed hands, to include
the contact information of the new owners?

Did it mean private collectors kept their collections in nicer
containers than did museums?

Did it mean that collectors dusted their artifacts more often than did
museum staff?

Did it mean that collectors did better archaeological research with
their artifacts than did museum staff?

If the study meant something like the first and last items, then you
may have a point.

If the study meant something like the second or third items, then the
artifacts in collectors' hands would be effectively irrelevant from
the POV of future archaeological investigators who needed the
artifacts themselves to conduct new investigations with them.

The main point is it would reduce much of the black market for artifacts.

No. The main point is that it would make artifacts generally
unavailable for future investigation by archaeologists who needed the
artifacts themselves in order to conduct new studies to answer
questions or use techniques not available when the artifacts were
originally passed to private hands..

A ferinstance: many, many cutting tools in the hands of private
collectors were never studied for edge wear or DNA in the cutting
surfaces. Without some sort of registry, and the ability of archies to
temporarily requisition relevant parts of such collections for study,
these artifacts will not add to human knowledge.

I know full well that many collectors are meticulous about maintaining
their artifacts in pristine (i.e. uncleaned and safely kept)
conditions; and that many collectors are marvelously cooperative with
the archies who request borrowing artifacts for further study. This is
commendable. If all artifacts that wended their way into private hands
were kept so, and so made available; and further were kept in a
registry that was available to any interested archaeologist; and which
registry was updated whenever an artifact changed hands; then the
archie could lie down with the collector.

But, AFAIK, this is far from universal, and far from a certain way to
maintain the artifacts in a scientifically useful manner. IOW, many,
perhaps most, of the collectors' artifacts are just toys and vanity
acquisitions, and have no archaeological value whatsoever beyond that.

I have seen several statements, and heard one personally, that most of
the museum stuff are replicas


If something is rare and precious often the museum will display replicas.

and the real items are in private hands.

Large numbers are. What happens to make money, the government will sell off
items found. I have seen many such shops sell these items.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Archaeologists are the real experts - arent they?
    ... however the last bit about collectors not being able to do ... >> archaeologists would be great, its a pity that most archaeology ... > assessment of the artifacts in his/her possession. ... I can't speak for collectors of anything other than coins. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Seaweed? 50mile trek inland, beachcombing
    ... places like McFadden Beach deposit Pleistocene artifacts high ... prehistoric artifacts and fossil bones found at McFaddin Beach, ... efforts of Paul Tanner, a retired refinery foreman from Port Arthur ... the beach was known to local collectors ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Researcher Leads Underwater Archeological Expedition In Gulf of Mexico in Search of First Americ
    ... prehistoric artifacts and fossil bones found at McFaddin Beach, ... efforts of Paul Tanner, a retired refinery foreman from Port Arthur ... the beach was known to local collectors as ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Archaeological Digging is Booming Business
    ... collectors looked after artifacts better than the museums. ... What metric did the study use to determine that private collectors ... Did that mean that private collectors could and did always provide the ... unavailable for future investigation by archaeologists who needed the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Archaeological Digging is Booming Business
    ... collectors looked after artifacts better than the museums. ... What metric did the study use to determine that private collectors ... unavailable for future investigation by archaeologists who needed the ...
    (sci.archaeology)